Generally, the invention relates to a device which improves the safety of disposable lighters. This device focuses on the need for child safety together with the need to easily and inexpensively manufacture the device. It addresses these aspects by providing designs which are easily adapted to existing disposable lighters, and by providing a design which efficiently addresses the differences between adult and child manipulation of disposable lighters.
For many years disposable lighters have been commonplace in almost every household. The commercial success and consumer appeal of these disposable products is perhaps best realized when it is understood that it has been estimated that in excess of 500,000,000 disposable lighters are used each year. This commercial success is not without its drawbacks. Perhaps because of the widespread availability of disposable lighters, there has been a pressing need to address the safety of such lighters in the hands of small children. This need has naturally grown over time and has become so pressing that in 1985 it was the subject of a petition to the Consumer Products Safety Commission requesting that disposable lighters be required to be child resistant. In a recent report on the status of this petition, it was noted that over the six year period from 1980 through 1985 the need for a child resistant design was well known as approximately 730 deaths were the result of child-play with lighters. The extent to which this need was recognized can perhaps be even more directly shown by the fact that in one year alone, child-play with lighters accounted for an estimated 7,800 fires, 120 deaths, 860 injuries and $60.5 million dollars in property damage. An estimate of the annual average cost of the deaths, injuries, and property damage from child-play with lighters has been estimated to be approximately 310 to 375 million dollars each year. Of these incidents, studies have shown that 96% of them involved disposable butane lighters and 90% of the children were less than six years old.
In spite of the well-understood and broad extent of this need, no solution has as yet been proposed which adequately addresses both the need with respect to children and the commercial realities of implementing a solution on an efficient basis. Although designs have been developed in the past which address a safety issue, the focus of these designs has been inadvertent ignition rather than intentional ignition by children. Also, these designs have not been directed to the practicalities incidental to disposable rather than refillable lighters. In contrast to the present invention, the fact that these designs have accommodated refillable lighters has drastically changed the focus from an inexpensive and efficient device to durable, machined products. In addition, the focus on inadvertent rather than intentional ignition of the lighters has, in virtually every instance, failed to result in substantial benefit for the issue of child-play with disposable lighters. This is an important difference between those prior efforts and the present invention. Although the present invention, through its focus on child safety, has as an incidental benefit on inadvertent ignition, those prior efforts directed toward inadvertent ignition had minimal effect on child safety.
As an example, in U.S. Pat. No. 2,035,886 issued in 1936, a device was designed which related not to disposable lighters but rather to a permanent lighter. That permanent lighter did not have safety as one of its objects but rather was designed for convenience purposes in that it would automatically light when picked up. Obviously, the danger of unintentionally knocking over the lighter would actually reduce safety of the device rather than enhance the safety of lighters in general.
In 1950, through U.S. Pat. No. 2,520,328, a desire for a safety mechanism in refillable lighters was noted. This involved the typical portable, refillable lighter of the time and incorporated a mechanical safety mechanism which was very durable. Nothing of this design addressed the peculiar needs of children as the safety issue involved was not that if intentional ignition by children but rather inadvertent ignition by the user him or herself. Nothing in this design addressed the need for disposibility; in fact, the opposite seems to be true. The design proposed through this patent was not one which could be easily adapted to existing disposable designs as it is quite complex, would be difficult to assemble, and might even cost more to implement than the disposable lighters themselves.
In 1975, U.S. Pat. No. 3,898,031 was issued which also addressed the need for safety in refillable lighters. Again, the type of safety issue focused on was inadvertent ignition. Although ignition by small children was mentioned incidentally, the way that design operated showed that to focus was inadvertent ignition, "such as when the lighter is being carried in an individual's pocket" with only a secondary advantage being that the design was more difficult to operate for children. Although this design did mention simplicity as an object, this was in the context of ease of operation and reliability rather than ease of assembly and voluntary implementation on a commercial basis. It was designed to be "rugged . . . to withstand many years of intended usage" rather than on a disposable basis.
Finally, the recent invention set forth in U.S. Pat. No. 4,144,018 in 1979 was directed not to safety but rather to ease of use. That lighter used hypergolic fuel and therefore incorporated an interlock mechanism whose purpose was to prevent inadvertent exposure of the fuel to air (causing flame). No safety considerations are apparent and nothing in the design addresses the peculiar needs of a disposable device.
As can be seen from studies attached to the Consumer Safety Product Commission report entitled "Cigarette Lighter Petition, PP 85-2, November, 1987", none of these designs properly addressed the peculiar differences in physiology between adults and children. They would not appear to have actually been child resistant to the degree dictated by the present need.
The present invention addresses the long felt need of providing a child resistant disposable lighter. Although this need has been known for many years and involves a problem of substantial magnitude (as much as %375 million dollars a year), prior to the present invention no design existed which was both practical and effective and which properly balanced the competing interests of effectiveness with respect to children and cost and ease of use for adults on a disposable basis. Although the problem addressed through the present invention has been appreciated for some time, it would appear that the focus of those skilled in the art has actually taught away from the techniques and factors involved. As can be seen in the Consumer Products Safety Commission report, those skilled in the art have been focusing primarily on the striking mechanism of disposable lighters--not a separate release mechanism. Even in the earlier patented efforts which used a separate release mechanism, teachings of those skilled in the art were directed away from the peculiar needs of a disposable device and rather are designed for permanent and durable usage. These efforts perhaps seem to be caused primarily by the fact that those skilled in the art failed to see that intentional, not inadvertent, ignition was the problem and that those skilled inthe art failed to properly address the balance necessary for a disposable unit.
The device presented here appears to present a solution which is unexpectedly simple in use, manufacture, and implementation. Until the present invention nothing addressed the unique interplay of child safety while not adversely affecting the desire for adults to have a disposable lighter which was easy to operate and at the same time addressed the practical requirement of affording a design that was inexpensive, easily assembled, and readily manufactured through minor modification of existing techniques and molds.